AR Simulation Games

Augmented Reality technology does not need to exist as a "stand alone" device or be used just as a basic visual demonstration/simulation. Many leading authorities have investigated the use of AR technology in terms of how it can be integrated within rich experiences based on various Instructional Design philosophies.

AR simulation games provide one example of how instructional design theories, such as constructivism, situated cognition, and game-based learning, can be supported through the use of AR technology. As well, there is ample evidence to indicate that the use of AR enhances motivation, and engagement in learners.

Please read the article, "Wherever You Go, There You Are"below, which provides examples of how AR simulation games can be used to provide a rich learning experience that is supported by instructional design theory.

Following the reading, explore the examples below, which summarize several other AR Simulation Games.

Squire, K., Mingfong, J., Matthews, J., Wagler, M., Martin, J., Devane, B., Holden, C. (2007). Wherever you go, there you are: Place-based augmented reality games for learning. In B.E. Shelton & D.A. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 265-295). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from: http://itls.usu.edu/~bshelton/simcompgames/SimCompGames-Proof.pdf#page=267

Explore!

A view of the game screen and landscape. (Costabile et. al, 2008)

Explore! is an AR/Mobile learning application that was designed to support the learning of middle school students who visited a historical park in Italy.

It incorporated elements of constructivism, game-based learning, and situated cognition. Designers hoped that the game would increase engagement at the park, improve problem-solving strategies, allow students to interact with multimedia information, and give an overall view of Ancient Roman daily life.

The game is structured similar to a treasure hunt, and is played by groups of three to five learners. The narrative is based around the idea that Gaius, a Roman Citizen must accomplish a list of tasks during his day. Players must locate and travel to meaningful places by following certain indications in the game. Each player assumes a different role: Gaius (citizen), the reader (outlines the challenge), the Oracle (who inputs information in the device), and Scouts (who are extra players that go ahead and trace the route to target areas). The game is supervised by the Game Master, who is an adult leader. The Game Master conducts a de-briefing session at the game's end.

Students playing Explore! (Costabile et. al, 2008)

Each group is armed with a cell phone that provides the challenge descriptions, a map, and a glossary of locations. Tasks that Gaius must complete include finding a job by looking at a historical location called the Trajan Way - an area where many coaches once traveled. Players use the map and the clues provided to travel to the precise locations in the park.

To be successful, players must formulate hypotheses, discuss information, retrace their steps when they go wrong, and correct their mistakes. When players believe they have arrived at a target location, they mark it on their maps.

At the conclusion of the game, players receive "God Gifts", which are 3-D reconstructions of the historical places that they accurately identified. These can be compared to the real locations.

Costabile et al. (2008) tested this game with two groups of students. One group played a paper version, and one group played a mobile version. After playing the game, both groups took a paper and pencil test of knowledge, and participated in an interview about the game.

There was essentially no difference in test scores between the group that played the paper version when compared with the mobile version. The researchers commented that perhaps there was a 'ceiling effect' in play; both groups had done so well on a formal assessment exam that it would be difficult to find a significant difference between test group scores.

It was found that when playing this game, the main benefit was student engagement. Following game-play, the group of students who played the mobile version of the game engaged in longer discussions than did the paper-game group. Students' feedback indicated that they appreciated the collaborative nature, and learning potential of this type of game.

Reference:

Costabile, M., de Angeli, A., Lanzilotti, R., Adrito, C., Buono, P., & Pederson, T. (2008). Explore! Possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. Chi '08: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 145-154. Retrieved from: http://delivery.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1145/1360000/1357080/p145-costabile.pdf?ip=136.159.235.223&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=66020453&CFTOKEN=40344059&acm=1329080500_4f180400d766f875c56229320bec6cac

Environmental Detectives

Map Interface, Environmental Detectives (Klopfer & Squire, 2007)

Environmental Detectives was created at MIT and is based around the idea that a toxic contaminant has been released and will cause health problems to local citizens.

Players use a Pocket PC device with GPS to navigate, collect interviews from virtual experts, gather information, and drill for imaginary soil samples at different locations. Players have 90 minutes to develop a hypothesis about the source of the contamination, and report back with a plan of action, including probable causes, based the information they collect. Designers consulted actual experts to determine which local toxic contaminants might actually exist in the area where the game was played. This increased the authentic nature of the game. (The toxin was a ground-water contaminant that could have come from one of a variety of sources.)

The game was field tested at a local university campus with the goal of making it transferable to other venues.

A main goal was to have the learner see the "importance of balancing desktop research and fieldwork, (to) understand that investigations are a social enterprise, constrained by time and budgets, and that alternative acceptable solutions to environmental problems and disasters typically can be found" (Klopfer & Squire, 2008, p.210-11).

The authors considered the properties of handheld computers as part of their design rationale:

portability
social interactivity - exchange data/collaborate
context sensitivity - unique to the current location/environment
connectivity (to other data devices)
individuality - customized to provide scaffolding for each individual's investigation

(Klopfer, Squire, & Jenkins, 2002)

Virtual Contact List (Klopfer & Squires, 2007)

The first iteration of the game was tested with college freshmen, although the designers, Klopfer and Squire, hoped the game could be scaled-down for other learners as well.

To gather information, players moved through a real physical space, guided by a map on the Pocket PC. When they reached a certain area, GPS technology triggered the release of multimedia information, which was presented by a virtual "contact" such as a citizen or scientist. Players could also "drill" for soil samples at various locations. Players must interpret the information, and determine the validity and bias of the source providing it.

The idea of "Cascading Events" was incorporated - talking or drilling in certain locations would reveal new information. One event lead to another.

Due to limited time, students must be thoughtful about where they will drill, and which experts they might consult - they don't have time to talk to everyone!

Map and Information Screenshots (Klopfer & Squire, 2007)

The game was re-written for both junior and senior high school students.

Students who tested the game showed engagement and enjoyed the combination of real and virtual elements. Most wanted to play the game again. Klopfer and Squire (2008) found that at times, the game became like a scavenger hunt and the deeper learning processes were lost, and that some students had difficulty navigating the game. Some students seemed to be waiting for someone to give them the right answer, rather than attempting to formulate a hypothesis.

Their findings led to improvements that were included in one of their future AR Games, "Mad City Mystery".

References:

Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental Detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. Paper presented at International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Vaxjo, Sweden.

Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives - The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 56(2), 203-228.

Mad City Mystery

Mad City Mystery from Spotlight on Vimeo.

Mad City Mystery is a murder mystery game. It takes between 90 minutes and three hours to play. The game was played on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Mad City Mystery was playable by Fourth Grade students (using some adult support), Middle School students and High School/College students. Players must interview virtual characters, gather quantitative data samples, and examine government documents to explain the death of the fictional character, Ivan. A combination of natural and environmental causes are suspected.

Educational objectives include: developing scientific inquiry skills, develop knowledge of how chemicals move through the water cycle, and learning about human impact on the environment. It is based on an open-ended problem, in which no single cause could have explained Ivan's death, and there is not a single correct solution.

Like Environmental Detectives, the use of GPS triggers the release of information presented by virtual characters and documents.

Further elements of game-based design were included in Mad City Mystery by Squire and Jan (2007):

Assuming Roles: players assume different roles (medical doctor, government official, environmental specialist. Each player receives different and incomplete information during game play. This must be shared with other group members in order to gain a complete understanding of the information. Each role gathers information differently. For example, the doctor can gather medical information about virtual characters.
Place-Based Learning: actual environmental problems specific to the site were chosen to include in the game.
Challenges/Rewards: players receive new information when they correctly solve the challenges
Collaboration and Competition: students must examine and discuss the sources of their information in order to make a correct hypothesis

Squire and Jan (2007) found that that when the Fourth Grade students played this game:

they were eager
they communicated well
they often interjected their own (unrelated) theories at first
they developed increasingly data-oriented theories as the game progressed
they had difficulty summarizing information for each other, or didn't notice that some group members had conflicting information

When the Middle School students played:

they were eager to participate
they summarized evidence much better than the younger students
they tried to develop a narrative by weaving together the various stories from contacts
most came to a plausible solution, by indicating that one single cause could not have caused the death

When the High-school students played:

they showed great engagement
they formed early hypotheses based on evidence, but tended to hang onto them for a long time, even in light of new information
many students asked if they themselves could design a game

Overall, Squire and Jan (2007) found that AR simulations show promise for increasing scientific literacy. The games required students to read, generate meaning and ideas, make conjectures, understand phenomena, and speak in groups. The additional factors of assuming roles and real places also improved the experience.

Map of virtual characters and their information (Squire & Jan, 2007)

Reference:

Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing science argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29.